The Insiders
-
Jan
16
Issue of the Day: Policy Motions
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 16, 2007 | 18 Comments
Genocide Awareness Project (GAP)and Pro-Choice students at UBC, March 2005. (photo by Gina)
Consider the following:
- McGill University banned Blood Services from blood drives in their building because they ban men who’ve had sex with men from donating.
- Carleton passed a policy preventing anti-abortion groups from getting funding. (link)
- SFU’s student society has an activist stance regarding the genocide in Darfur.
- Concordia explodes with rage every time its student council mentions anything related to the Middle East.
- UBC’s AMS has, in recent history, debated policy motions on Darfur, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Iraq, and even held a (phony) referendum on the legalization of marijuana.
So today’s question: Should the AMS concern itself with issues that don’t directly affect students? Those primarily outside the University sphere?
Those who support such motions tend to argue the following:
- Student groups have the ability and resources to drive social change, and somebody has to push the agenda. “We have to act.”
- It encourages social debate, and the University as a site of social resistance.
- The policies are good.
But when they come up, there is a vocal contingent who tend to say things including:
- Nobody cares what a student society says; our voice is meaningless.
- It’s potentially divisive.
- We should stick to the business of running a student union.
It’s an age-old dilemma. Sometimes it’s purely in the abstract, but sometimes it has bearings on policy. For instance, what bearing would an official AMS policy on abortion have on anti-abortion demonstrations by AMS clubs? If the AMS has, say, an pro-abortion policy, should, or can, it constitute an anti-abortion club? Or should we even be considering these questions in the first place?
Comments
18 Comments so far
To add nuance:
During the SoutEast Asian Tsunami of 2004, the AMS donated roughly 10,000$ to the Canadian Red Cross (25 cents per student).
At times of crises, global “outreach” becomes less politicized and yet could be argued to be an act beyond the student society’s duty.
When, if at all, is a student society legitimized to act beyond its immediate duties? Is this act considered a disservice to its members?
(I will add my personal opinion in a few days.)
To add nuance:
During the SoutEast Asian Tsunami of 2004, the AMS donated roughly 10,000$ to the Canadian Red Cross (25 cents per student).
At times of crises, global “outreach” becomes less politicized and yet could be argued to be an act beyond the student society’s duty.
When, if at all, is a student society legitimized to act beyond its immediate duties? Is this act considered a disservice to its members?
(I will add my personal opinion in a few days.)
I’ll also note that because of that legitimate, yet ultimately emotionally-charged, decision, the AMS spent its donation budget for three years into the future.
I’ll also note that because of that legitimate, yet ultimately emotionally-charged, decision, the AMS spent its donation budget for three years into the future.
Its always been a highly divisive issue.
I tend to fall in the field that student government should hold social policies on issues that dont directly affect students, however, when they do so, there should be a concrete reason for doing so.
In effect, im arguing that there should be at least a tennuous link for students.
The problem with this debate is that there are too many people on both sides that see it as black and white, there are those on one side that argue that any social policy is wrong, and that it should just ‘stick to the business’ and theres the other side that wants to take a stand on damn near everything they can lay their hands on.
On the first, its inherently flawed in that what IS the business of student government? To represent and support the student body is the short answer, the long answer is so much more. Student government is a lobby group, its a business, its a support network, its an advocacy group, and yes, it can and probably should be, a supporter of social justice, whatever the body decides that to mean.
Why is this? At its fundamental core, a student government is what the students want it to be. If the students want for there to be a stand, and a vocal one, on a particular issue, then it should do that.
It should represent teh will of the students.
The people on the other extreme would have a social policy on just about everything. The CFS policy binder is a classic example of this, its literally hundreds of pages thick. They have a policy about virtually everything, making the policies, by and large, pointless as its rarely, if ever, actually acted upon. What is the point of passing a policy if your not going to actually do anything about it?
Student bodies should be careful in selecting social issues to take stances on, careful that the stance reflects the view of the body, but also careful that they take stances on issues they legitimately feel they can have an effect on.
Their exists this grey area in which to operate in, an area where student governments should choose carefully those issues they take a stand on and actually move on them.
They should also never take a social policy stance which denies rights or services to their own students. They must accept dissenting opinions right exist to exist within their ranks, and that that policy should be freely open to challenge by the student body. To stifle debate on that policy is inherently undemocratic, as how is opposition supposed to mount to a policy if they arent allowed to talk about that policy in a negative way?
This is why Carlton was so bad, they literally stifled debate on the topic. They cut funding and support to a group which had the simple intention of holding a debate on the issue in which the government has taken a stance.
That is hubris ladies and gentlemen. That is student government run amok. That is a student government which has decided that the opinions of the government are more important than those of the voters, when in reality, what they should be striving for is to reflect the views of the voters. And that is the biggest reason why student government has a bad reputation, because of ideologues who run rampant with whatever agenda they have, be it left, right or just plain crazy, and ignore the real views of students.
Its always been a highly divisive issue.
I tend to fall in the field that student government should hold social policies on issues that dont directly affect students, however, when they do so, there should be a concrete reason for doing so.
In effect, im arguing that there should be at least a tennuous link for students.
The problem with this debate is that there are too many people on both sides that see it as black and white, there are those on one side that argue that any social policy is wrong, and that it should just ‘stick to the business’ and theres the other side that wants to take a stand on damn near everything they can lay their hands on.
On the first, its inherently flawed in that what IS the business of student government? To represent and support the student body is the short answer, the long answer is so much more. Student government is a lobby group, its a business, its a support network, its an advocacy group, and yes, it can and probably should be, a supporter of social justice, whatever the body decides that to mean.
Why is this? At its fundamental core, a student government is what the students want it to be. If the students want for there to be a stand, and a vocal one, on a particular issue, then it should do that.
It should represent teh will of the students.
The people on the other extreme would have a social policy on just about everything. The CFS policy binder is a classic example of this, its literally hundreds of pages thick. They have a policy about virtually everything, making the policies, by and large, pointless as its rarely, if ever, actually acted upon. What is the point of passing a policy if your not going to actually do anything about it?
Student bodies should be careful in selecting social issues to take stances on, careful that the stance reflects the view of the body, but also careful that they take stances on issues they legitimately feel they can have an effect on.
Their exists this grey area in which to operate in, an area where student governments should choose carefully those issues they take a stand on and actually move on them.
They should also never take a social policy stance which denies rights or services to their own students. They must accept dissenting opinions right exist to exist within their ranks, and that that policy should be freely open to challenge by the student body. To stifle debate on that policy is inherently undemocratic, as how is opposition supposed to mount to a policy if they arent allowed to talk about that policy in a negative way?
This is why Carlton was so bad, they literally stifled debate on the topic. They cut funding and support to a group which had the simple intention of holding a debate on the issue in which the government has taken a stance.
That is hubris ladies and gentlemen. That is student government run amok. That is a student government which has decided that the opinions of the government are more important than those of the voters, when in reality, what they should be striving for is to reflect the views of the voters. And that is the biggest reason why student government has a bad reputation, because of ideologues who run rampant with whatever agenda they have, be it left, right or just plain crazy, and ignore the real views of students.
Leave it to me to, on a lark, post a response easily twice the length of the original post…
I would definitely like to see what those running for election have to say on this topicl, rather than armchair execs like me.
Leave it to me to, on a lark, post a response easily twice the length of the original post…
I would definitely like to see what those running for election have to say on this topicl, rather than armchair execs like me.
I’ve always wondered about the legitmacy of policy motions that supposedly represent “the student movement” but are, in fact, decided upon by a room of 40 people who themselves are chosen to represent an arbitrarily partitioned (ie: by degree type) segment of the student population by less than 10% of that student population.
I’ve always wondered about the legitmacy of policy motions that supposedly represent “the student movement” but are, in fact, decided upon by a room of 40 people who themselves are chosen to represent an arbitrarily partitioned (ie: by degree type) segment of the student population by less than 10% of that student population.
What’s funny is that I pushed very, very hard for that Tsunami motion before I was an exec, but would probably have fought it tooth and nail by the time I was a few months in.
What’s funny is that I pushed very, very hard for that Tsunami motion before I was an exec, but would probably have fought it tooth and nail by the time I was a few months in.
i like this pat character.
i like this pat character.
the university is not isolated from the rest of the world.
in general, any attempt to pretend that we are isolated from the outside world serves to disempower students and create in them the erroneous sensation that they are powerless to affect change, to make a difference.
we buy products from, and invest in, questionable companies (Coke, Carlyle Group). the student society should not only be clear about its opposition such relationships, but should also foster relationships with fair trade companies, and present a vision of a more equitable society. (be the change you wish to see).
this is possible, desirable, symbolic, but also important and newsworthy.
the issue of the tsunami was not one of “charity”, but one of urgency. even if we didn’t have any money in our “donations budget”, the AMS President could have donated some from the President’s budget. By “emotionally-charged” do you mean that the entire South Asian community was worried that their loved ones might be washed into the sea? Is it an “emotionally-charged” issue to save people from burning buildings?
the university is not isolated from the rest of the world.
in general, any attempt to pretend that we are isolated from the outside world serves to disempower students and create in them the erroneous sensation that they are powerless to affect change, to make a difference.
we buy products from, and invest in, questionable companies (Coke, Carlyle Group). the student society should not only be clear about its opposition such relationships, but should also foster relationships with fair trade companies, and present a vision of a more equitable society. (be the change you wish to see).
this is possible, desirable, symbolic, but also important and newsworthy.
the issue of the tsunami was not one of “charity”, but one of urgency. even if we didn’t have any money in our “donations budget”, the AMS President could have donated some from the President’s budget. By “emotionally-charged” do you mean that the entire South Asian community was worried that their loved ones might be washed into the sea? Is it an “emotionally-charged” issue to save people from burning buildings?
This is what happens when it’s too cold to leave the house… you get addicted to blogs.
Tristan, there are a number of serious flaws with your argument:
1) You cannot perfectly equate the student society with students. Just because the student society does not do something does not mean students are not. With the tsunami, groups like UBC Red Cross, which has a mandate to help out with issues exactly like the tsunami, were holding fundraisers and working to deal with the problem. I, and many others, have given money out of our own pockets to global aid organizations without leadership or encouragement from our student society.
2) The President has no budget to speak of. Last year the projected budget gave the AMS exactly $2000 of leeway on $10.5 million in revenues. I say this not to say the AMS should not give away anything but to say that it must be very careful about the urgent situations that do occur and that it should try and maximize its impact if it can.
3) On the question of urgency, does that mean that the family that was pushed from their home by the tsunami has more right to the AMS’s money than the family pushed from their home in Darfur? When you’re working with limited resources that’s a choice you *have* to make. Some students would say it should go to Darfur and others would say Thailand. Neither was electing you with even a general consideration that you’d be making that kind of decision on their behalf and it’s their money that you’re spending.
4) Once you spend your budget, that’s it. There isn’t any more to spend. So yes, emotionally charged decisions should be treated carefully (I’m not saying they’re irrational) because you’re necessarily limiting your ability to help in the future. $10,000 spread over 100 million people could probably help one family. $10,000 spent on 1000 insecticide-treated bednets could prevent thousands of people from getting malaria and dying.
5) The AMS spends $175,000 on about 5,000 users through Safewalk. If the student society is really about achieving social justice, should it not be spending all of that money in a way that provides a substantially greater and guaranteed benefit in terms of saving lives or bringing people out of poverty?
Me think you doth protest too much.
This is what happens when it’s too cold to leave the house… you get addicted to blogs.
Tristan, there are a number of serious flaws with your argument:
1) You cannot perfectly equate the student society with students. Just because the student society does not do something does not mean students are not. With the tsunami, groups like UBC Red Cross, which has a mandate to help out with issues exactly like the tsunami, were holding fundraisers and working to deal with the problem. I, and many others, have given money out of our own pockets to global aid organizations without leadership or encouragement from our student society.
2) The President has no budget to speak of. Last year the projected budget gave the AMS exactly $2000 of leeway on $10.5 million in revenues. I say this not to say the AMS should not give away anything but to say that it must be very careful about the urgent situations that do occur and that it should try and maximize its impact if it can.
3) On the question of urgency, does that mean that the family that was pushed from their home by the tsunami has more right to the AMS’s money than the family pushed from their home in Darfur? When you’re working with limited resources that’s a choice you *have* to make. Some students would say it should go to Darfur and others would say Thailand. Neither was electing you with even a general consideration that you’d be making that kind of decision on their behalf and it’s their money that you’re spending.
4) Once you spend your budget, that’s it. There isn’t any more to spend. So yes, emotionally charged decisions should be treated carefully (I’m not saying they’re irrational) because you’re necessarily limiting your ability to help in the future. $10,000 spread over 100 million people could probably help one family. $10,000 spent on 1000 insecticide-treated bednets could prevent thousands of people from getting malaria and dying.
5) The AMS spends $175,000 on about 5,000 users through Safewalk. If the student society is really about achieving social justice, should it not be spending all of that money in a way that provides a substantially greater and guaranteed benefit in terms of saving lives or bringing people out of poverty?
Me think you doth protest too much.